CS2 vs CSGO massive loss of performance (almost divided by 3)

[Frey]

with 4090 13900K
with CSGO, I can use my pg27aqn 1440p 360hz I have +360fps every time at ultra (usually 700)
BUT
with CS2 I have 300-380 fps max with drops to 250 fps at 1440p ultra, there is a serious loss of performance !!!

IT'S A SHAME !!!!

IT'S UNACCEPTABLE !!!!

[Shao]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Pizzashot:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Flux:

This guys gotta be trolling man. not even pros using that high of a hz monitor. A lot are still on 30 series cards too. If you're being completely serious, you're still at an advantage hardware wise and are obviously worried about having to go down to 240hz to the point it is getting in your head making you believe you'll perform worse.

His argument is ruined by the fact that well payed and sponsored professionals play with 240hz monitors and low resolution. The rich professionals would get the highest hz monitor possible to gain a huge advantage if it was a thing. https://prosettings.net/lists/cs-go/

Not only that but most Nvidia GPU's have severe driver overhead at low res.

[Frey]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Shao:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Pizzashot:

His argument is ruined by the fact that well payed and sponsored professionals play with 240hz monitors and low resolution. The rich professionals would get the highest hz monitor possible to gain a huge advantage if it was a thing. https://prosettings.net/lists/cs-go/

Not only that but most Nvidia GPU's have severe driver overhead at low res.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9EWyYtF9pY

[Shao]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von ᴷᵒˡʸˢᶦᵒᴺ™:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Shao:

Not only that but most Nvidia GPU's have severe driver overhead at low res.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9EWyYtF9pY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLEIJhunaW8

[Frey]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Shao:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von ᴷᵒˡʸˢᶦᵒᴺ™:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9EWyYtF9pY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLEIJhunaW8

no issue sry

[Pizzashot]

Shox gameplay looks just as smooth as when I play with my 144hz 2k peasant monitor, and he uses a 360hz monitor. 60-144 is huge, 144-360 is miniscule.

[Cinnamoroll]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von M-A-X-E ™:

Dude you are not faster than 250 fps anyways, you dont need 1000 fps, because you wont react to 1 ms anyways, you wont see a 1 ms frame display .. you need atleast 5 ms to react on it, if you are a super human that is, wich only 1% in the entire world is .. and how many of them play cs ?

This is a painfully uninformed opinion. Reaction times don't actually play a part in this, it's a smoother experience to play on a higher FPS than your refresh rate because each refresh of your monitor will be closer to the last frame your PC drew. 3kliksphilip made a very informative video about this called "How many frames a second do you need?".
Even if this issue doesn't affect you, it doesn't mean it doesn't for others. Don't be judgemental about topics you don't even have a basic understanding of.

[Schekelberg73]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Pizzashot:

Shox gameplay looks just as smooth as when I play with my 144hz 2k peasant monitor, and he uses a 360hz monitor. 60-144 is huge, 144-360 is miniscule.

How did you look at his gameplay? It got streamed or recorded or? If yes, thats the bottleneck. In most cases its just 60fps. And just looking at it is something else than moving the mouse and seeing the movement itself.

[M☈ Ⓜⓘⓓⓔ ™]

What method did you use to note these results? If its not too complex to setup I can prob give you my spec and my performance difference. Side note: I have not upgraded my gpu drivers in a while.

[no desire to be like everyone]

mi knife is called franzj ♥♥♥♥ and i didnt get a ban or anything. so yea i guess is not posible to get a penalti for that.

[Shao]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Mahjong God:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von M-A-X-E ™:

Dude you are not faster than 250 fps anyways, you dont need 1000 fps, because you wont react to 1 ms anyways, you wont see a 1 ms frame display .. you need atleast 5 ms to react on it, if you are a super human that is, wich only 1% in the entire world is .. and how many of them play cs ?

This is a painfully uninformed opinion. Reaction times don't actually play a part in this, it's a smoother experience to play on a higher FPS than your refresh rate because each refresh of your monitor will be closer to the last frame your PC drew. 3kliksphilip made a very informative video about this called "How many frames a second do you need?".
Even if this issue doesn't affect you, it doesn't mean it doesn't for others. Don't be judgemental about topics you don't even have a basic understanding of.

It was already proven that it hardly matters regardless. Input lag tests actually show within margin of error results in button to pixel by just having synced frames.

Refresh rates makes the bigger difference even if you don't have the framerate to match it.

[CapoFantasma97]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von ᴷᵒˡʸˢᶦᵒᴺ™:

with 4090 13900K
with CSGO, I can use my pg27aqn 1440p 360hz I have +360fps every time at ultra (usually 700)
BUT
with CS2 I have 300-380 fps max with drops to 250 fps at 1440p ultra, there is a serious loss of performance !!!

IT'S A SHAME !!!!

IT'S UNACCEPTABLE !!!!

Oh no, a beta with a very exclusive access system doesn't have perfect production ready performance and isn't bug free, what will we do...

[CapoFantasma97]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Shao:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Mahjong God:

This is a painfully uninformed opinion. Reaction times don't actually play a part in this, it's a smoother experience to play on a higher FPS than your refresh rate because each refresh of your monitor will be closer to the last frame your PC drew. 3kliksphilip made a very informative video about this called "How many frames a second do you need?".
Even if this issue doesn't affect you, it doesn't mean it doesn't for others. Don't be judgemental about topics you don't even have a basic understanding of.

It was already proven that it hardly matters regardless. Input lag tests actually show within margin of error results in button to pixel by just having synced frames.

Refresh rates makes the bigger difference even if you don't have the framerate to match it.

GSync/FreeSync and NVidia Reflex are a boon for smooth experiences, but framerate still plays a high part in it. While it's all diminishing returns the higher you go, there's still a remarkable reduction in the whole latency pipeline and the perceived smoothness of the image in motion when you use very high framerate and refresh rate monitors.

Still, I'd rather put a cap at something reasonable not too far above my freesync monitor's refresh rate, as having good thermals and a stable experience with enough overhead for performance spikes is also important. And also it's lighter on hardware wear and energy bills.

[no desire to be like everyone]

Dude you are not faster than 250 fps anyways, you dont need 1000 fps, because you wont react to 1 ms anyways, you wont see a 1 ms frame display .. you need atleast 5 ms to react on it, if you are a super human that is, wich only 1% in the entire world is .. and how many of them play cs ?

[Frey]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von burned out from the inside:

Dude you are not faster than 250 fps anyways, you dont need 1000 fps, because you wont react to 1 ms anyways, you wont see a 1 ms frame display .. you need atleast 5 ms to react on it, if you are a super human that is, wich only 1% in the entire world is .. and how many of them play cs ?

the human eye can't see over 30fps, it's as true as your post

[ANYME]

beta?